Duane Morris Sports Law

December 17, 2025December 17, 2025 by Bryan Shapiro

University of Utah Advances Private Equity Model for College Athletics Funding

The University of Utah is advancing a groundbreaking agreement with private-equity firm Otro Capital that is expected to generate more than $500 million for its athletics program. The deal creates a new for-profit entity, Utah Brands & Entertainment LLC, which will manage the commercial and revenue operations of the school’s athletic department, such as sponsorships, ticketing, licensing, concessions, and media-related revenue. The University of Utah will retain majority ownership and board control, while Otro Capital and a select group of major donors will acquire minority stakes.

This arrangement represents a significant shift in how a public university structures and finances its athletics operations. By blending private investment with donor participation, the model provides access to substantial capital at a time when athletic departments face rising costs tied to facilities, NIL activity, and anticipated revenue-sharing with student athletes. It also introduces new legal considerations, including governance design, transparency obligations for a for-profit entity attached to a public institution, and potential securities and conflict-of-interest issues arising from donor-investors gaining equity positions.

The partnership may also signal a broader trend toward hybrid public-private financing in college sports. The University of Utah is not the first to spin off its athletic department’s revenue streams into a private entity. However, the creation of a new for-profit entity, one that is majority-owned by the school but supported by private investors, underscores how rapidly the financial pressures of college sports are accelerating. Rising operational costs, the expansion of NIL opportunities, and the likelihood of direct revenue sharing with athletes have pushed universities to explore alternative funding mechanisms. For college athletics more broadly, the University of Utah’s model may become a blueprint. By blending university control with outside capital and professionalized operational management, the structure is designed to meet the commercial realities of today’s sports landscape while still preserving institutional oversight. If successful, this could influence everything from facilities funding and media rights strategy to athlete compensation and long-term planning. It also raises larger questions about how institutions reconcile what they have long dubbed as “amateurism” and their mission, with the sport’s growing commercial pressures.

Ultimately, the deal signals a broader evolution: college athletics is moving quickly toward professionalized, capital-intensive operations, and private equity (or debt) is likely to become a more common part of that ecosystem.

December 16, 2025 by Duane Morris

NASCAR Settles Antitrust Lawsuit with Racing Teams

On December 11, 2025, NASCAR settled an ongoing and closely watched antitrust trial brought by two racing teams, 23XI Racing (co-owned by Michael Jordan) and Front Row Motorsports, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina. The settlement was announced after the plaintiffs had presented their case-in-chief and following testimony from several high-profile witnesses, including Jordan. The financial terms of the settlement have not been publicly disclosed, but the agreement aims to provide a more equitable business framework for teams in the sport.

Read the full Alert on the Duane Morris website.

December 9, 2025 by Bryan Shapiro

Georgia Seeks Enforcement of Liquidated Damages Provision in Ongoing NIL Conflict

The University of Georgia, through the University’s athletic association (UGAA), is seeking damages totaling $390,000 against a former football player, Damon Wilson II, after he elected to transfer to Missouri following the 2024 season. The demand stems from a clause in Wilson’s NIL contract that required him to forfeit the balance of his agreement if he transferred to another school.

Wilson signed a 14-month NIL deal in December 2024 through a third-party collective, reportedly worth $500,000 if he completed the full term. Payments were structured as monthly installments of $30,000, with two additional $40,000 bonuses contingent on compliance through future transfer-portal windows. The contract, however, also contained a liquidated-damages provision requiring that if Wilson left the team or entered the transfer portal, he would owe the remaining value of the contract in a lump sum. After reportedly receiving only one monthly payment before declaring his intent to transfer, the University—through its athletic association—has asserted that he now owes $390,000 under the exit clause.

This lawsuit carries outsized significance because it may become one of the first true test cases on the enforceability of buyout-style and liquidated-damages provisions in NIL agreements. To date, such clauses have been rare, largely untested, and clouded by uncertainty under traditional contract principles. A judicial decision upholding UGAA’s position could set a powerful precedent—effectively signaling to schools, collectives, and athletes nationwide that exit-fee mechanisms are viable and enforceable. Such a ruling could rapidly accelerate the adoption of buyout provisions across NIL contracts and fundamentally reshape the architecture of athlete compensation and mobility in the NIL era.

At the same time, the case squarely presents the question of whether the $390,000 figure represents a legitimate, good faith estimate of the collective’s anticipated losses or whether it crosses the line into an unenforceable penalty. Under longstanding contract law principles, liquidated-damages provisions are permissible only when they reasonably approximate the actual harm expected at the time of contracting. If a court concludes that the amount is disproportionate, punitive, or untethered to any measurable loss, the clause could be struck down as an impermissible penalty. Such a ruling could have an immediate effect on NIL and revenue share agreements across the country, as many contain similar purported liquidated damages provisions.

Wilson’s case could ultimately help set the first meaningful precedent on whether liquidated-damages clauses can function as an effective and legally defensible substitute for traditional buyout fees. If courts bless this model, it may open the door to a new era in NIL contracting—one in which exit-fee structures become a standard tool for shaping athlete mobility, program stability, and the broader economics of college sports.

November 26, 2025November 26, 2025 by Bryan Shapiro

NCAA Resets Rules on Student-Athlete Betting on Professional Sports

In a notable rebuke to the Division I Council’s recent policy push, NCAA Division I member schools have voted by a two-thirds majority to rescind a previously approved rule change that would have allowed student-athletes and athletics department staff to place wagers on professional sports. The proposal—introduced by the Council in October and scheduled to take effect on November 22, 2025—triggered swift and widespread backlash across the sports, media, and entertainment sectors. Following a 30-day review period, more than 240 Division I institutions voted to roll back the measure, reaffirming the NCAA’s longstanding prohibition on all forms of sports betting by student-athletes and athletics personnel.

Recent Investigations Heightening Scrutiny

Critics of the proposed rule change warned that the measure carried significant risks for the integrity of both collegiate and professional competition. Opponents emphasized that permitting student-athletes to wager on the very professional leagues they hope to enter could create inherent conflicts of interest, particularly in light of their relationships with scouts, prospective teammates, and coaches. They also cautioned that access to privileged or insider information—whether obtained intentionally or inadvertently—could undermine competitive fairness and expose student-athletes to substantial legal, ethical, and compliance concerns.

In line with the integrity risks, the NCAA’s reversal comes in the wake of several high-profile scandals, which likely contributed to the NCAA’s decision. For example, just days after the NCAA’s proposal was announced in October, certain NBA players were charged in a federal gambling investigation for allegedly sharing inside information and manipulating their performance, and certain MLB players were charged on counts including wire fraud and conspiracy to influence sporting events. In the college game, the NCAA permanently revoked the eligibility of numerous Division I men’s basketball players for placing bets on their own games, sharing inside information, and manipulating performance to influence prop bets and has announced ongoing investigations against many more, involving allegations of wagering on their own contests, sharing non-public information, and attempting to influence game outcomes.

The membership vote reflects a recalibration by the NCAA, which appeared poised to capitalize on the expanding legalized sports-wagering market by relaxing its long-standing restrictions. But the recent wave of high-profile gambling investigations likely underscored the inherent risks of such a change. In effect, while the sports-betting industry continues its rapid growth, the NCAA has stepped back from a policy that might have opened the door to new revenue opportunities—pulling the proposal before it ever truly got off the sideline.

November 14, 2025 by Bryan Shapiro

Athlete to Owner: JuJu Watkins Joins Boston Legacy Football Club Investor Group

USC women’s basketball star JuJu Watkins has made history as the first known college athlete to directly invest in a professional women’s sports franchise. Watkins has joined the investor group behind Boston Legacy FC, the NWSL expansion club set to debut in 2026.

Watkins’ move reflects a growing trend: elite college athletes are increasingly using their Name, Image and Likeness (NIL) earnings not only for endorsement deals, but to participate in the same types of long-term investment opportunities available to professional athletes.

NIL: From Endorsement Deals to Equity

Watkins’ investment is a powerful example of the continued evolution of the NIL marketplace, but it also highlights a new set of legal considerations. Equity stakes—particularly in professional sports franchises—carry potential complications, including:

Securities law compliance and investor-qualification requirements
Conflict-of-interest concerns
School, conference, and NCAA amateurism rules
Employment-status implications

Here, Watkins’ interest appears to be structured as a passive, minority investment in a privately held entity, a design that helps preserve NCAA eligibility and avoids triggering employment classification issues. Even so, athlete-investors must navigate the same risks as any private investor, making careful legal review essential to avoid outsized exposure or unfavorable terms.

Growing Investment Opportunities

Boston Legacy FC represents an attractive investment platform in a rapidly expanding women’s sports ecosystem. The club features a women-led ownership group and continues to draw significant capital commitments and prominent investors—now including Watkins, alongside Indiana Fever star Aliyah Boston, Olympic gymnast Aly Raisman, actress and director Elizabeth Banks, and former USC standout and current Chicago Bears quarterback Caleb Williams. This investor profile underscores the accelerating momentum behind women’s sports as a growth asset class—on and off the field.

As college athletes become stakeholders—not just endorsers—they will play a larger role in shaping both the NIL landscape and the broader sports-business ecosystem. Watkins’ investment is an early glimpse of that shift: the rise of the athlete-owner beginning at the collegiate level.

August 13, 2025August 13, 2025 by Bryan Shapiro

Nevada Supreme Court Rejects NFL’s Bid to Force Coach Jon Gruden into Arbitration

The battle between former Las Vegas Raiders head coach Jon Gruden and the NFL took a significant turn this week when the Nevada Supreme Court refused to force Gruden’s claims into arbitration. Gruden’s lawsuit alleges that the league and Commissioner Roger Goodell intentionally leaked private emails, triggering his resignation and damaging his reputation. The court’s ruling not only revives Gruden’s case in open court, as opposed to private and confidential arbitration, but also raises broader questions about the limits of arbitration clauses in professional sports contracts, particularly when the party seeking to compel arbitration is dealing with a former employee.

Arbitration Clauses, Unconscionability, and Former-Employee Status

In its August 11, 2025, decision, the Nevada Supreme Court, by a 5–2 vote, reversed a May 2024 panel ruling that favored arbitration. The majority found that the NFL Constitution’s arbitration provision was unconscionable as applied to Gruden. The court rejected the NFL’s attempt to invoke equitable estoppel to bind him to arbitration, holding that such doctrines do not apply to former employees in these circumstances. As a result, the trial court’s earlier refusal to compel arbitration stands, allowing Gruden’s case to proceed in a public forum.

Impact on the Litigation and the NFL’s Next Moves

The decision is a clear victory for Gruden, whose legal team framed it as an important win for employees challenging arbitration provisions they never expressly agreed to, or that no longer apply due to a change in status. For the NFL, the ruling is a setback but not necessarily the end of the road. The league has indicated it will explore further appeals, potentially including a rehearing before the Nevada Supreme Court or even review by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Broader Implications for Sports Law

Beyond the immediate parties, the case underscores an emerging tension in sports law: the balance between enforcing arbitration clauses, which leagues often rely upon to resolve disputes privately, and ensuring that such clauses remain fair and enforceable under state law. For practitioners, this ruling is a reminder to closely examine the scope, applicability, and procedural fairness of arbitration provisions, and particularly where a dispute involves former employees or matters that extend beyond the employment relationship.

July 25, 2025 by Bryan Shapiro

A Wave of Federal NIL Action Signals Big Changes Ahead

Over the past several weeks, there has been a surge of federal government activity aimed at reshaping the landscape of Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) rights in college athletics. From executive action to competing congressional bills, lawmakers and regulators are moving quickly to impose structure on what has become a chaotic and state-by-state patchwork. These developments carry major implications for both student-athletes and the institutions that support them.

Executive Action Brings New Urgency to NIL Reform

On July 24, 2025, the federal government took its most assertive step yet in regulating the NIL landscape. A new executive order prohibits third-party pay-for-play arrangements masked as NIL deals, directs several federal agencies to begin developing a framework for college athletics, which includes clarifying the employment status of student-athletes, and requiring protections for scholarships and non-revenue sports. While it stops short of creating new law, the order reflects growing momentum toward reining in the patchwork of state NIL regimes and restoring a more standardized framework for college athletics.

The SCORE Act Gains Traction in Congress

Meanwhile, the Student Compensation and Opportunity through Rights and Endorsements (SCORE) Act continues to move forward in the U.S. House of Representatives. The proposed legislation would establish a national NIL standard, affirm that student-athletes are not employees, protect medical and academic resources, and provide liability shields to the NCAA and conferences under antitrust law, which is the only real way to protect the NCAA from continuous antitrust lawsuits. Supporters argue that the bill offers stability and clarity for athletes and institutions alike. However, critics caution that it could restrict athletes’ rights, especially in how it limits avenues for economic advancement and collective representation.

Athletes.org Advocates for a Different Path

In response, Athletes.org has backed an alternative federal bill—the College SPORTS Act—which focuses on athlete protections, health and safety standards, and preserving NIL rights without expanding employer-employee classifications. The legislation reinforces athletes’ ability to earn fair compensation through NIL deals while safeguarding against institutional retaliation. Unlike the SCORE Act, this proposal leans more heavily into athlete empowerment and transparency, reflecting a growing demand from current and former players for more robust legal protections and economic opportunities.

What This Means for Athletes and Universities

These developments are poised to reshape the legal and regulatory environment for universities and athletes alike. Institutions must prepare for potential changes in compliance obligations, athlete support standards, and NIL oversight. At the same time, athletes and their representatives should monitor the evolving legislative landscape to ensure their rights and opportunities are protected. Law firms advising in this space should remain agile—helping clients navigate shifting federal and state frameworks and aligning advocacy strategies with whatever direction NIL reform ultimately takes.

June 26, 2025June 26, 2025 by Duane Morris

How the NCAA NIL Settlement Affects Higher Education Institutions

On June 6, 2025, Judge Claudia Wilken of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California approved the settlement agreement in House v. NCAA, Oliver v. NCAA and Hubbard v. NCAA. As higher education institutions determine how to implement the terms of the agreement, all should be cognizant of potential Title IX implications. Read the full Alert on the Duane Morris website.

June 16, 2025June 17, 2025 by Bryan Shapiro

The First Challenge to House v. NCAA: Female Student Athletes Claim Backpay Provision Violates Title IX

Just days after the House v. NCAA settlement was approved, the first appeal of the order was filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit based on Title IX concerns. On June 11, 2025, eight female athletes argued that women will not receive their fair share of the $2.8 billion in back-pay for athletes who were previously barred from profiting off their name, image, and likeness (NIL). This marks the first legal challenge to the landmark House settlement, but it is unlikely to be the last.

The appeal centers on the settlement’s “back-pay” provision, claiming that the proposed payment formula “would be a massive error causing irreparable harm to women’s sports.” While the provision compensates eligible student-athletes for earnings dating back to 2016, the amounts vary based on individual circumstances. According to the appellants, this approach results in female athletes receiving significantly less than their male counterparts—an alleged shortfall of roughly $1.1 billion out of the total $2.8 billion settlement fund. They contend this disparity violates Title IX’s mandate for gender equity.

The appellants further argue that “[t]he settlement suggests schools would have paid male athletes over 90% of their revenue over the past six years as though Title IX didn’t apply.” Under Title IX, any college or university accepting federal funds is prohibited from sex-based discrimination. If schools or conferences acting on their behalf violate this standard, the appellants argue that the law has been breached. Simply put, schools can “either pay the athletes proportionately, or they can return all of their federal funds. But they can’t do both.”

For now, the court has stayed the back-pay portion of the settlement, delaying payments until the appeal is resolved. This appeal is likely to delay distribution of the settlement funds and could invite further challenges on similar Title IX grounds.

We will continue monitoring this case closely as it develops, given its significant implications for NIL rights and gender equity in collegiate sports.

May 30, 2025May 30, 2025 by Bryan Shapiro

Future of NCAA In Question Following SEC’s Rumored Exit

“It Just Means More.” The slogan of the Southeastern Conference (SEC) has long symbolized the prestige and tradition of its collegiate sports programs. But could the SEC be preparing to forge its own path? Recent statements made by SEC Commissioner Greg Sankey on May 26, 2025, in response to swirling rumors about a potential departure from the NCAA, suggest the SEC might be positioning itself to become the first power conference to actually break away. During the highly anticipated spring SEC meetings, reports emerged that the presidents of SEC member schools had granted Commissioner Greg Sankey the authority to withdraw from the NCAA if he believed it was in the conference’s best interest. However, Sankey denied those claims, stating, “I don’t have the authority to just depart [the NCAA]. That’s not been voted upon. I’ve shared with the decision-making working group—I have people in my room asking, ‘Why are we still in the NCAA?’” While it remains unclear whether Sankey will ultimately lead the SEC out of the NCAA, the conference is clearly distancing itself and emphasizing the need for a governance model that aligns with the evolving landscape of college sports.

The timing of these reports appears conveniently aligned with the SEC’s broader push to gain greater governing control over collegiate athletics amid the turbulence surrounding the pending House v. NCAA settlement, the introduction of a new revenue-sharing model, and the restructuring of the College Football Playoff system. Under the proposed settlement in the House case, the Power Five conferences would hold up to 65% of the voting power on rulemaking committees across a range of decisions. The SEC has suggested increasing that figure to as much as 68%. Meanwhile, commissioners from smaller conferences have voiced concerns about the potential erosion of checks and balances if the SEC and Big Ten are allowed to dominate the governance of college sports.

The idea of breaking away from the NCAA has been circulating among Power Four schools—particularly the Big Ten and SEC. Despite being granted more autonomy than other conferences, some leaders remain dissatisfied with the current structure of college sports governance. Commissioner Greg Sankey has repeatedly acknowledged that the SEC is seeking greater authority and independence within any new governance model, and the mere suggestion of an NCAA exit appears to serve as a significant bargaining chip toward that goal. This stance is reflected in the SEC’s recent actions, including its partnership with the Big Ten to form a joint advisory group aimed at addressing the mounting challenges facing college athletics. The group was created to confront issues such as recent court rulings, ongoing litigation, inconsistent state laws, and complex governance proposals. While both conferences have stated they are not currently planning to leave the NCAA, the formation of this advisory group raises important questions about the NCAA’s future role in governing college sports.